O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[teapartysamurai]

You mistook his meaning.

HE's just laying the foundation.

Let us start with the things upon which we can agree.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not, in those words, appear anywhere in the Constitution.

To the extent that people believe that the phrase is somehow properly a part of Constitutional analysis, therefore, the notion cannot be founded upon the literal text.

And by your caustic reply to TPS's post, it appears you accept the premise. The precise phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution. Excellent.

Isn't it nice to agree.

Now, time to move on to the NEXT point on the subject.

Liability I'm a she.

But that's the point. There are idiot liberals who claim "Separation of church and State" is in the Constitution.

You want a stupid lib who claims it's there?

See the Civil Liberties Union!

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States. See James Madison's Detached Memoranda

NO SEE THE ACTUAL WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NO WORDS THERE even SUGGESTING a wall. IN FACT there is something there liberals ignore "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF!"

Like stopping prayers at a graduation ceremoney, stopping religious Christmas songs, etc etc etc.

But liberals claim the Constitution bars such activities IN VIOLATION OF THE ACTUAL WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Liberals base their wall on a tissue of LIES to ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RELIGION of LIBERALISM.

And as usual with any oppressive state religion, no competing religion can be allowed. THUS, all other religious expression must be stopped in the name of "freedom."

That's not freedom, that's censorship!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Oh yeah........don't forget........when O'Donnell was asked what Democrat currently serving in the Senate she would reach across the aisle to work with, she named Hillary Clinton.

How the fuck is someone in the Senate going to get something done if they are unable to reach across the aisle? And how the fuck can you reach to someone if you DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK THEY ARE?????

Nope, O'Donnell is a total twit. But then again, look who she learned from, the Twitter Quitter Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil, the illustrious batshit crazy Palin.

Have a url to prove any of that?

Actually, yes..........

Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell struggled to name a Democratic senator she could work with Wednesday, eventually settling on Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

O’Donnell was asked the question during a debate on WHYY television in Wilmington.
Continue Reading
Text Size

* -
* +
* reset

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com Listen
POLITICO 44
Get Adobe Flash player

“Well, she's not a senator anymore, but I would definitely have to say Hillary Clinton,” O’Donnell said, noting that she respects Clinton’s rise in the political world as another female candidate.

Democrat Chris Coons shot back that his Republican opponent “literally cannot name a single currently serving senator in my party with whom she would work.”

O’Donnell then interrupted with a shout of “Lieberman,” who often aligns with Republicans and supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the 2008 presidential election.

Coons didn’t react to her naming Lieberman, instead continuing with his attack, saying O’Donnell is “someone who has no experience crossing the bipartisan divide.”

Christine O?Donnell can't name Democratic ally - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Like I said, the teabagging bitch is about as stupid as they get.

 

[Trajan]

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

shes actually right-


the first amendment-

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

RELIGION

An Overview

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 21

Separation of Church and State" indeed does not appear...one could ay that the gov. franchise accorded to region ala tax staus etc. means that the separation is not quite what its cracked up to be in the context that they would be treated the same as any other org..

juts sayin'....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh yeah........don't forget........when O'Donnell was asked what Democrat currently serving in the Senate she would reach across the aisle to work with, she named Hillary Clinton.

How the fuck is someone in the Senate going to get something done if they are unable to reach across the aisle? And how the fuck can you reach to someone if you DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK THEY ARE?????

Nope, O'Donnell is a total twit. But then again, look who she learned from, the Twitter Quitter Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil, the illustrious batshit crazy Palin.

Have a url to prove any of that?

Actually, yes..........

Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell struggled to name a Democratic senator she could work with Wednesday, eventually settling on Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

O’Donnell was asked the question during a debate on WHYY television in Wilmington.
Continue Reading
Text Size

* -
* +
* reset

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com Listen
POLITICO 44
Get Adobe Flash player

“Well, she's not a senator anymore, but I would definitely have to say Hillary Clinton,” O’Donnell said, noting that she respects Clinton’s rise in the political world as another female candidate.

Democrat Chris Coons shot back that his Republican opponent “literally cannot name a single currently serving senator in my party with whom she would work.”

O’Donnell then interrupted with a shout of “Lieberman,” who often aligns with Republicans and supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the 2008 presidential election.

Coons didn’t react to her naming Lieberman, instead continuing with his attack, saying O’Donnell is “someone who has no experience crossing the bipartisan divide.”

Christine O?Donnell can't name Democratic ally - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Like I said, the teabagging bitch is about as stupid as they get.

I can't name one democrat I would want to work with and become bi partisan is not the reason she will be sent to Washington. Being bipartisan with the current democrats might as well be one of them

 

[ABikerSailor]

Have a url to prove any of that?

Actually, yes..........

Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell struggled to name a Democratic senator she could work with Wednesday, eventually settling on Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

O’Donnell was asked the question during a debate on WHYY television in Wilmington.
Continue Reading
Text Size

* -
* +
* reset

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com Listen
POLITICO 44
Get Adobe Flash player

“Well, she's not a senator anymore, but I would definitely have to say Hillary Clinton,” O’Donnell said, noting that she respects Clinton’s rise in the political world as another female candidate.

Democrat Chris Coons shot back that his Republican opponent “literally cannot name a single currently serving senator in my party with whom she would work.”

O’Donnell then interrupted with a shout of “Lieberman,” who often aligns with Republicans and supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the 2008 presidential election.

Coons didn’t react to her naming Lieberman, instead continuing with his attack, saying O’Donnell is “someone who has no experience crossing the bipartisan divide.”

Christine O?Donnell can't name Democratic ally - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Like I said, the teabagging bitch is about as stupid as they get.

I can't name one democrat I would want to work with and become bi partisan is not the reason she will be sent to Washington. Being bipartisan with the current democrats might as well be one of them

So, in other words, you're a fan of gridlock and don't want Washington to do shit for the next 2 years, right?

Figures, you're stupider than I'd originally thought Little Racist Bastard in NC.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, yes..........



Christine O?Donnell can't name Democratic ally - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Like I said, the teabagging bitch is about as stupid as they get.

I can't name one democrat I would want to work with and become bi partisan is not the reason she will be sent to Washington. Being bipartisan with the current democrats might as well be one of them

So, in other words, you're a fan of gridlock and don't want Washington to do shit for the next 2 years, right?

Figures, you're stupider than I'd originally thought Little Racist Bastard in NC.

No I am a fan of doing the right thing saying no is the right thing to do when what is being done is so very wrong. But of course a faggot like you wouldn't understand that. since your so fucked up.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I can't name one democrat I would want to work with and become bi partisan is not the reason she will be sent to Washington. Being bipartisan with the current democrats might as well be one of them

So, in other words, you're a fan of gridlock and don't want Washington to do shit for the next 2 years, right?

Figures, you're stupider than I'd originally thought Little Racist Bastard in NC.

No I am a fan of doing the right thing saying no is the right thing to do when what is being done is so very wrong. But of course a faggot like you wouldn't understand that. since your so fucked up.

Ever heard of compromise? It's how differing viewpoints get things done together.

But, you're too much of a close minded idiot to see that. Go fuck yourself you racist cocksucker (yeah.....I called you a cocksucker, but you called me a faggot).

Bet your ancestors are really proud of the asshole you've turned out to be.

 

[Big Fitz]

So, in other words, you're a fan of gridlock and don't want Washington to do shit for the next 2 years, right?

Goddamn right I love gridlock! I don't WANT government making my life more difficult. The only thing I want done is a reduction of government and simplification of the tax code.

Otherwise, I want em to stop do-gooders from fucking up my life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah well same challenge I've given to all my prey.

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

Then on top of that, I'll walk to the Center of the Oval on THE Ohio State Campus and sing "I'm a Little Tea Pot" at the strike of noon.

Hell, I'll go to the 50 yard line at half time of the Ohio State v. Michigan Game and sing the Michigan Fight Song, if you can find those EXACT words!

Until then "implied meaning" is just liberal for "the Constitution says what WE say it says!"

(And yes, I've actually had a liberals dumb enough to take me up on that bet. Morons, the lot of 'em!)

These are the same idiots who think abortion is in the Constitution because Roe v. Wade says so, BUT think Bush v. Gore or Citizens United proves a run away court system.

The USSC is only the last word on the Constitution when liberals LIKE the decision, NOT when they don't!

no one cares what you do, and no one thinks that you *think* in the generally accepted sense of the term.

carry on

Excuse me, but it's not about what I *think.*

It's what liberals claim is in the Constitution and have been claiming since 1960, which IS "Separation of Church and State."

Just because libs insist it's in the Constitution doesn't make it so, and that's why I set up my bet.

Just because YOU don't like the way I put it, doesn't change it's validity.

:

If separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution, why have we seen over 200 years OF separation of church and state in this country?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, in other words, you're a fan of gridlock and don't want Washington to do shit for the next 2 years, right?

Figures, you're stupider than I'd originally thought Little Racist Bastard in NC.

No I am a fan of doing the right thing saying no is the right thing to do when what is being done is so very wrong. But of course a faggot like you wouldn't understand that. since your so fucked up.

Ever heard of compromise? It's how differing viewpoints get things done together.

But, you're too much of a close minded idiot to see that. Go fuck yourself you racist cocksucker (yeah.....I called you a cocksucker, but you called me a faggot).

Bet your ancestors are really proud of the asshole you've turned out to be.

They are not being sent to DC to compromise, They are being sent to fix the shit the democrats fucked up. If they don't keep the crap from taking affect then they will be the party of the DOP

 

[Intense]

Actually, yes..........



Christine O?Donnell can't name Democratic ally - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Like I said, the teabagging bitch is about as stupid as they get.

I can't name one democrat I would want to work with and become bi partisan is not the reason she will be sent to Washington. Being bipartisan with the current democrats might as well be one of them

So, in other words, you're a fan of gridlock and don't want Washington to do shit for the next 2 years, right?

Figures, you're stupider than I'd originally thought Little Racist Bastard in NC.

If the choice is between State Tyranny or the State doing nothing, I am comfortable with the State doing nothing.

[13] It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. - Thoreau

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

 

[ABikerSailor]

No I am a fan of doing the right thing saying no is the right thing to do when what is being done is so very wrong. But of course a faggot like you wouldn't understand that. since your so fucked up.

Ever heard of compromise? It's how differing viewpoints get things done together.

But, you're too much of a close minded idiot to see that. Go fuck yourself you racist cocksucker (yeah.....I called you a cocksucker, but you called me a faggot).

Bet your ancestors are really proud of the asshole you've turned out to be.

They are not being sent to DC to compromise, They are being sent to fix the shit the democrats fucked up. If they don't keep the crap from taking affect then they will be the party of the DOP

You mean, going to DC to reinstate the fuck ups of the Bush Jr. admin.

 

[Liability]

So, in other words, you're a fan of gridlock and don't want Washington to do shit for the next 2 years, right?

Figures, you're stupider than I'd originally thought Little Racist Bastard in NC.

No I am a fan of doing the right thing saying no is the right thing to do when what is being done is so very wrong. But of course a faggot like you wouldn't understand that. since your so fucked up.

Ever heard of compromise? It's how differing viewpoints get things done together.

But, you're too much of a close minded idiot to see that. Go fuck yourself you racist cocksucker (yeah.....I called you a cocksucker, but you called me a faggot).

Bet your ancestors are really proud of the asshole you've turned out to be.

Picture this: Retarded you driving a car at 120 mph straight toward the cliff. Your front seat passenger is screaming at you, "STOP!"

Your idiot back-seat passenger suggests that you two need to stop arguing. "Compromise," suggests that idiot back-seat passenger. "Slow down to 60!"

Your back-seat passenger isn't only half the idiot you are. You are BOTH complete morons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ever heard of compromise? It's how differing viewpoints get things done together.

But, you're too much of a close minded idiot to see that. Go fuck yourself you racist cocksucker (yeah.....I called you a cocksucker, but you called me a faggot).

Bet your ancestors are really proud of the asshole you've turned out to be.

They are not being sent to DC to compromise, They are being sent to fix the shit the democrats fucked up. If they don't keep the crap from taking affect then they will be the party of the DOP

You mean, going to DC to reinstate the fuck ups of the Bush Jr. admin.

Blame BUOOOSH is getting old. Democrats controlled the spending from 2007 until now.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

 

[Intense]

no one cares what you do, and no one thinks that you *think* in the generally accepted sense of the term.

carry on

Excuse me, but it's not about what I *think.*

It's what liberals claim is in the Constitution and have been claiming since 1960, which IS "Separation of Church and State."

Just because libs insist it's in the Constitution doesn't make it so, and that's why I set up my bet.

Just because YOU don't like the way I put it, doesn't change it's validity.

:

If separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution, why have we seen over 200 years OF separation of church and state in this country?

There is an important concept you fail to grasp. God is not the Church. No State Religion is plain. That is not being argued. You do realize that Your obligation to your own Conscience, takes priority over your obligation to the State or Society? Do with it what you will, it is your choice and responsibility. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Whatever, The State has no Authority over your Prayer. It is the Church that is protected from the Tyranny of the State. It is the State that is protected from the Dogma of the Church. You cannot, by the Power of the State adopt one brand of teaching over another. What power or authority, does a Judge or cop have over Salvation? How is Salvation the concern of the State?

 

[Liability]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

To the precise extent that, during that period, he failed to bind the fucking loon Congress to a rock and veto those liberal Democratics into the ground --

yes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

Hey soup sandwich, the party of No was the GOP.

Try again retard.

 

[Intense]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

Remember all of those false accusations from the Left even in the 90's about Evil Republicans wanting to throw old people out into the streets. So in effect, many in the RNC, tried to out program the Democrats which was a piss poor line of reasoning, contributing to us being where we are today.